CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC pulls rug from under
tax-and-spenders' scheme
The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected claims that the state is not meeting its constitutional duty to equitably deliver adequate public education, a decision that affirms state education reform efforts while dealing a blow to urban school districts that had sought relief.
The 5-2 ruling by the state's highest court reflected a divided court. Among the majority, including Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, three justices cited improvements in public education over the past 12 years, and two jurists indicated the high court should have a limited role in public policy making. The two dissenting justices suggested the court was turning its back on students in struggling school districts.
The ruling contradicted rulings across the country, including one on Monday in New York City, requiring cities and states to spend more on public education. The Massachusetts high court also rejected Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford's call for judicial action, dismissing the so-called Hancock case entirely....
For state budget writers, it's the second bullet dodged this year. In addition to avoiding court-ordered education funding increases, the Legislature and Romney last month learned that a threatened $600 million cut in state Medicaid funding would not occur this year. A ruling against the state in the Hancock case could have triggered a debate over whether to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas of the budget. Instead, education investments and improvements can be made at the Legislature's discretion.
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
SJC applauds education improvements,
rejects Hancock case plaintiffs
Conversely, the high court dealt a stunning loss to those who had hoped to sidestep the political process to achieve court-ordered remedies. That includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, two unions that had provided most of the funding for the so-called Hancock lawsuit alleging serious
underfunding.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
A victory for school reform
By Scot Lehigh
While the plaintiffs took some comfort from the finding that not all was well in Massachusetts classrooms, Norma Shapiro, president of the plaintiffs group Council for Fair School Finance, said slow progress was not enough.
"I'm sorry for the children that the court is so patient," she said. "The children have waited since 1993. That's 12 years. That's an entire generation.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC supports state's education reform
"Today’s decision is a defeat for thousands of children across Massachusetts, particularly children living in urban areas who must continue to struggle under the inequities of the current formula."
Massachusetts Federation of Teachers
February 15, 2005
Statement by Kathleen A. Kelley
on the Hancock decision by the Supreme Judicial Court
"Now our task as educators is to show our elected officials that too many children are being left behind under the current levels of funding. Every year that a child is stuck in an overcrowded classroom with out-dated textbooks is a shame, and should not be tolerated."
Massachusetts Teachers Association
Feb. 15, 2005
Statement by MTA President Catherine A. Boudreau
on the SJC's Hancock ruling
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Julie Hancock v. the Commissioner of Education amounts to an endorsement of the state's 1993 Education Reform Act, which led the state to boost school spending by more than $30 billion and create a test, the
MCAS, to measure academic performance.
But the decision dashes the hopes of plaintiffs, their lawyers, and some education and business leaders, who had hoped that the SJC would order changes that would lead to more money for education and a new statewide effort to improve schools.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC rejects school-funding challenge
Declines to order hike in spending for poor districts
Between 1993 and 2003, net school spending in Julie Hancock's hometown went from about $56 million to $143.5 million. Should the city have hired more teachers - to bring Julie's classes down to 25 students or pay its teachers more or buy better books or what? That the SJC decided not to second guess or micromanage that situation is a good thing.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC sends ed issues back where they belong
By Rachelle Cohen
Area Democrats all seem to be talking about the book "Don't Think of an Elephant!" by the linguist George
Lakoff. It urges progressives to pay attention to the words they use when discussing issues that are important to them such as the environment, education and health care....
Progressives should avoid the conservative's phrase "tax relief," for instance, because the word "relief" is usually used in connection with some kind of pain or affliction. When referring to taxes, Lakoff suggests progressives use words like "investment," because taxes pay for highway construction, or "dues," because taxes are the price a person pays to live in a society, much as a person pays dues to belong to a club.
[State Rep. Ellen] Story, who is pressing to boost Massachusetts' personal income tax rate from 5.3 percent closer to the 5.95 percent it was several years ago, prefers the phrase "restoring" the tax rate to "increasing" it, she told the professors. "We've got to stop the idea the governor has that we should reduce the personal income tax to 5 percent."
The Hampshire Gazette
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Democrats do think of an elephant
By Mary Carey
Governor Mitt Romney, spooked by even the suggestion he might raise taxes, has backed away from precedent-setting legislation that would have changed the way travelers pay hotel occupancy taxes when they get rooms from companies like
Hotels.com, Expedia, and Hotwire....
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s communications director, said the governor dropped the initiative for two reason. First, it failed to pass last year and its chances this year were considered slim. Second,
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, objected to it.
“She thought it was a tax increase,” Fehrnstrom said. “Our view is that we want to avoid increases in taxes. What we do want to do it close loopholes.” ...
That was apparently enough to derail a proposal that would have raised an extimated $12 million to $18 million a year for the state by making consumers who book rooms here through travel websites pay more in state and local hotel occupancy and convention center taxes.
The Boston Globe
Sunday February 13, 2005
State backs off adjusting online occupancy tax
Since when did Barbara Anderson, director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, become governor of the Commonwealth? ...
I thought Romney ran on a platform that opposed the power of special interests. Instead, he seems to be allowing the shortsighted leader of a special interest group to dictate the Commonwealth's tax and fiscal policy.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Who made Anderson boss?
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Congratulations taxpayers, the state Supreme
Judicial Court recognized its constitutional limitation and left
education funding in the hands of the legislative and executive branches
to determine.
Much of the credit for this taxpayer win belongs to
Robert M. Costrell (chief economist for the Executive Office of Administration
& Finance), who laid bare the obvious flaws in the plaintiffs'
Hancock case. You might recall his column in the Boston Globe (Oct. 4, 2004 -
"School performance isn't just about
spending"), but even more comprehensive was his article in
MassInc's CommonWealth magazine, "Wrong answer on school finances,"
in which he precisely dissected each of the plaintiffs' arguments,
positions funded by the teachers unions and adopted by superior court
Judge Botsford.
"For state budget writers, it's the second bullet dodged this year. In addition to avoiding court-ordered education funding increases, the Legislature and Romney last month learned that a threatened $600 million cut in state Medicaid funding would not occur this
year," the State House News Service yesterday reported.
The "second bullet dodged this year." Uh
oh, what are the Bacon Hill tax-and-spenders going to dig up next for an
excuse to avoid the voters' tax rollback mandate?
It was only three weeks ago that Governor Romney
revealed his budget, including his call to finally roll back the income
tax to 5 percent. It was greeted of course with the usual opposition
from the usual suspects: yesterday's SJC -- then looming -- was oft
trotted out as the excuse de jour, e.g., The Boston Herald the
following day, Jan. 27, reported ("Romney budget includes cut in state income
tax"):
Gov. Mitt Romney is again pushing for an income tax cut and leading lawmakers, questioning whether the state can afford it, are pushing back.
Rolling out a budget plan yesterday that boosts spending by 2.4 percent, the governor at the same time called for a cut in the income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent.
With the help of a multi-million dollar windfall resulting from past Medicaid over-budgeting, Romney vowed his $23.2 billion budget would be balanced.
The proposed tax cut will save a married couple with a $60,000 income $146, a single making $50,000 $133, and a family of four making $80,000 about $180.
But Sen. Therese Murray, chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said an income tax rollback, which would cost the state more than $400 million annually, is far from a certainly.
"We don't even know if that is doable right now," said Murray (D-Plymouth), adding the uncertainty created from the pending Hancock education funding decision and other factors. "From what we see now, no."
Revenues have been coming in higher than
expectations, a surplus again is mounting. The state avoided an expected
$600 million cut in federal Medicaid funding. Now the SJC has decided it
won't order that feared "hundreds of millions more" in state
spending on education. Seems that all the most recent "fiscal
crisis" excuses for keeping our money have been taken away. What're
the tax-and-spenders to do next?
Observe one of the best George Orwell imitations
since liberals became "progressives." Some of the Hampshire
County legislative caucus will attempt an intelligence-insulting game of
semantics, calling for an income tax increase by defining it as
"restoring" the income tax. First it has to be honestly
restored to its historic 5 percent before it can be increased any
higher. But what can you expect from a left-wing liberal extremist in
"progressive" clothing but more cheap camouflage?
Talk about cheap camouflage, it's about time for them to wind-up Michael Widmer
and his so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, set him out
marching again: "Structural Deficit, click" ...
"Stabilization Fund, click" ... "Can't Afford Rollback,
click" ... Structural Deficit, click" ...
Since Barbara helped stop an Internet tax, according
to a letter writer in today's Boston Globe she's suddenly become "the shortsighted leader of a special interest group."
This of course assumes that taxpayers are somehow a special interest.
Apparently we are in that writer's eyes -- a foolish charge we've
heard before which only underscores his ignorance. A "special
interest" is out looking for some advantage from government that
benefits only itself.
Taxpayers advocating for sounder tax and spending policies do not fall
under that definition because their only concern is that which belongs
to them, or once did.
Taxpayers can and certainly ought to have an
interest in how much money is involuntarily taken from them, and how
it is spent if not squandered, but this does not make taxpayers a
"special interest." Can a taxpayer ever be a special
interest -- when it's just their own money they're watching over?
To become a "special interest" someone has to try slipping
their hand into someone else's pocket to advantage themselves.
There's nothing "special" about me keeping
a pickpocket's hand out of my pocket, but it sure is in my interest to
do so. The pickpocket of course is a "special interest" who'd
like to take from me to benefit himself. If he knew he could get
government to do this dirty work for him, he'd be up on Beacon Hill
lobbying. Unfortunately, many have already succeeded and many more are
still trying.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
SJC applauds education improvements,
rejects Hancock case plaintiffs
By Cyndi Roy, Michael P. Norton, and Amy Lambiaso
The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected claims that the state is not meeting its constitutional duty to equitably deliver adequate public education, a decision that affirms state education reform efforts while dealing a blow to urban school districts that had sought relief.
The 5-2 ruling by the state's highest court reflected a divided court. Among the majority, including Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, three justices cited improvements in public education over the past 12 years, and two jurists indicated the high court should have a limited role in public policy making. The two dissenting justices suggested the court was turning its back on students in struggling school districts.
The ruling contradicted rulings across the country, including one on Monday in New York City, requiring cities and states to spend more on public education. The Massachusetts high court also rejected Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford's call for judicial action, dismissing the so-called Hancock case entirely.
For those who believe the state has vastly improved public education since 1993, the ruling was a victory. In 1993, the same court ordered education improvements in the McDuffy case, and the Legislature adopted a landmark reform law that launched the MCAS era and the infusion of billions of dollars in new aid to cities and towns. In today's ruling, the justices said education has been transformed since then.
"A system mired in failure has given way to one that, although far from perfect, shows a steady trajectory of progress," the justices wrote in their long-awaited opinion.
The suit was brought against the state by Brockton High School student Julie Hancock and students from 18 other school districts, including Brockton, Lowell, Springfield and Winchendon.
At a press conference Tuesday morning, Gov. Mitt Romney thanked the court for its decision and for recognizing the decade of work done by state leaders in the arena of education reform.
"I want to begin by saying thank you to the Supreme Judicial Court for making the right decision today," he said. "This is a great day for education reform and a great day for the kids of the Commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court has put education reform squarely on the shoulders of the Legislature and the administration, and we are ready to continue to work on education reform."
For state budget writers, it's the second bullet dodged this year. In addition to avoiding court-ordered education funding increases, the Legislature and Romney last month learned that a threatened $600 million cut in state Medicaid funding would not occur this year. A ruling against the state in the Hancock case could have triggered a debate over whether to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas of the budget. Instead, education investments and improvements can be made at the Legislature's discretion.
The state's defense team was led by Assistant Attorney General Dierdre
Roney. On Tuesday, Attorney General Thomas Reilly said he was pleased by the decision, but even happier that the court left the issue of education reform to the Legislature.
"I appreciate the fact that the court recognized the role of the Legislature in this past dozen years," he told reporters at a press conference in his office. "But I felt one of the most important things that happened in today's decision was that the court recognized that it is not the court's job to run our schools. In fact it doesn't work when they do."
Though they concurred with the majority opinion, Justices Martha Sosman and Judith Cowin both argued that the court had no authority to issue the original ruling in the McDuffy case. Cowin called the ruling "a display of stunning judicial imagination" that now should be overruled. The justices said education policy is the responsibility of the executive and legislative branches.
In the past few years, the Legislature and state's highest courts have been at odds on several high-profile issues. The court legalized gay marriage through its landmark Goodrich ruling, and forced the Legislature to act on public campaign financing and capital gains tax policy laws through its two other rulings.
Though the court ruled that the Legislature is on the right education track, Senate President Robert Travaglini said the Legislature will have to address shortcomings that persist in public education.
"I'm pleased to see the court recognized the progress that the Legislature has made in continuing education reform and improving educational conditions throughout the Commonwealth," he said. "That being said, we realize there are still underperforming districts who are presently underserved. So that signals to me that there's a need to change the way we're doing things."
Plaintiffs Say Court Too Patient
Because the court said that "no one, including the defendants, disputes that serious inadequacies in public education remain," the plaintiffs in the case said they were sorry to see the court expressing so much patience with efforts to improve public education.
"I just hope that the court is correct in being patient," said Julie Hancock, the lead plaintiff and a student at Brockton High School. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning, Hancock said the worrisome conditions - lack of computers, overcrowded classrooms - that led to the case remain today.
Norma Shapiro, president of the Council for Fair School Finance, said the lawsuit has moved education reform to the state's public policy front burner, and she expects Beacon Hill leaders to keep it there.
"The court recognized that kids have needs," said Shapiro. "I am sorry that the court didn't feel that they could say those needs had to be met under court order today. I'm sorry for the children that the court is so patient. The children have waited since 1993. That's 12 years, that's an entire generation of kids that have gone through school."
Education Commissioner David Driscoll said he was pleased by the decision, but acknowledged that there is much more to be done to achieve the goals laid out by the McDuffy case.
"While some may see this as a time to celebrate, I see it as a time to accept the full responsibility given to the governor, Legislature and the Department of Education to complete the work at hand, and get as many students as possible to higher levels of achievement," he said. "The court has affirmed that we are meeting our constitutional duty, but our job is far from done. This Commonwealth, the very birthplace of American public education, needs to come together around our public schools."
Romney said he did not dispute the need for additional education reform measures and for more spending, and said he and the Legislature would take steps this year to further improve public education.
"Of course, more money will be appropriate where there is a specific need to be met, where this is a program that needs to be funded, and we're open to that, and we'll work on those things," he said. "The commitment to our kids has to be the first obligation of the leaders of the Commonwealth. We will be measured as a society by how well we prepare our kids for the future and there is no time for backsliding."
Breathing Room
Sen. Stephen Buoniconti (D-Springfield), who represents a plaintiff district, said the ruling will make it difficult for Springfield to retain teachers who are leaving the district for higher paying jobs. "This is a bit of a disappointment," he said. "I was hoping to try to require the Legislature to provide some more additional funding to go back to Springfield, which is in dire need of assistance. Now, the impetus falls back on the Legislature's shoulder to try to come up for solutions to provide additional funding."
Michael Weisman, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling gives policy makers "breathing room" and emphasized that the court is not retreating from its opinion that the state has a constitutional duty to provide adequate education to all children and that education improvements are still needed.
"The majority seems to believe that the state has made significant efforts and that for today, the court will not intervene," Weisman said. "They're prepared to give the state more time."
Sen. Therese Murray (D-Plymouth), chairwoman of Senate Ways and Means Committee, agreed, and said the Senate will likely take steps this year to rework the education funding formula.
"It does give us the breathing room," she said. "It unshackles us. It takes off the handcuffs that we've had for a year-and-a-half. But we're not off the hook. I think the focus is clearly on the education funding formula ... and I think you're going to see a move to change the formula."
In addition to requiring the Legislature to earmark more money for schools, the plaintiffs had sought a comprehensive study of public education financing recommended by
Botsford. The court rejected that request as well.
"What ails our failing schools cannot be cured by a study," the justices wrote. A wide-ranging study would be "likely to retard rather than advance the progress of educational reform," they said, and would "divert substantial time and resources from the task of education reform."
While a majority on the court said the entire problem has been studied enough, there are 108 House and Senate members who have signed on as sponsors of legislation creating a study commission. Several of them met with reporters Tuesday and said they're reading to tackle the issues.
"We take great heart in Margaret Marshall's words," Barrios said. "But we believe the study is now more important than ever ... We in the Legislature will decide how much is going to be spent."
Sponsors of a constitutional amendment requiring universal access to quality health care and insurance found reason to be pleased with the court's opinion. Barbara
Roop, co-chairwoman of the Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign, said the ruling should reassure legislators who are worried that the courts may intervene if it disagrees with potential laws drafted to implement a universal health care system.
"The Hancock decision is a clear statement that the court will in fact defer," Roop said. "If the Legislature acts, they will accept the Legislature's interpretation of the terms like affordable and equitable. It still indicates that whatever you have done, you should fund."
Roop said the health care amendment is "designed to force the Legislature to act. It would be unworkable solution if the courts were micromanaging the health care system. That was never our intent and I think the courts have said that's not their intent in education."
Despite their defeat, opponents of the court's decision said they will continue to work with lawmakers to improve education. Teachers union officials were sharply critical of the ruling.
"It's shameful that the quality of the education a child receives is dependent upon the community in which their family happens to live, rather than the constitutional guarantee acknowledged by the Supreme Judicial Court in its decision today," said Kathleen Kelley, president of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers. "The Massachusetts Federation of Teachers will continue to work cooperatively with the Legislature to correct the existing imbalances that hinder our urban public schools, perpetuate an achievement gap in urban communities, and violate children's constitutional rights."
In their dissenting opinions, justices Roderick Ireland and John M. Greaney said that despite efforts to create higher standards for student achievement, the state is failing to meet its obligations because it cannot put those standards into practice in all school districts.
"The plaintiffs' situation requires relief by this court," Greaney wrote. "Creating academic standards that are national models cannot be deemed constitutionally appropriate if those standards cannot be implemented in the focus districts where funding is inadequate."
Many legislators seemed relieved by the decision, while also ready to move on education policy changes.
Said Rep. Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset), co-chair of the Joint Committee on Education: "This is a little bit of relief, but I don't think it in anyway absolves us from our responsibilities. It just allows us to direct the resources where they need to go, instead of the courts telling us. We have to look very carefully at how we're delivering services, make sure our best practices are being shared with our communities like the Holyokes the
Lowells, and the Tauntons. I think it will allow us to craft our next step in education reform."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
A victory for school reform
By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist
Governor Romney was suffering with the flu but still beaming like a lighthouse when he came to the podium yesterday to address the day's big story -- and with good reason.
After months of nervous anticipation at the State House, the Supreme Judicial Court delivered a sweeping victory to the administration in the long-running lawsuit over whether the state is spending enough on education in poorer communities. In its 5-2 decision, the SJC strengthened the hand of the governor and those who believe that in the next stage of education reform, new state spending on education should be tied to specific goals.
Conversely, the high court dealt a stunning loss to those who had hoped to sidestep the political process to achieve court-ordered remedies. That includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, two unions that had provided most of the funding for the so-called Hancock lawsuit alleging serious
underfunding.
To be sure, this was not just a victory for the Romney administration but for Attorney General Thomas Reilly, whose office defended the state, and for the Legislature, which has kept the funding faith with education reform since passing the landmark Education Reform Act in 1993.
In reaction, the losers tried to portray the decision as only a qualified victory for the defendants. In fact, it was a rout. Not only did the SJC reject requests for judicial remedies; the high court actually ended its long-running role in monitoring the state's educational efforts.
In arriving at its decision, the SJC ignored the recommendations of Superior Court Judge Margot
Botsford, whom it had appointed to make a finding of fact on the case.
That required a diplomatic dance on the part of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
"I accord great deference to the Superior Court judge's thoughtful and detailed finding of fact," maintained Marshall in her opinion.
Perhaps, but the chief justice arrived at very different conclusions. Instead of endorsing Botsford's call for much greater SJC involvement and oversight, Marshall offered an opinion that should make sense to anyone who has followed education reform closely.
To wit: Elected policy-makers are conscientious about the need to improve education and have been since the passage of education reform. Given that reality, there is no need -- and, indeed, no basis -- for the SJC to intervene further.
Or, as Justice Marshall put it: "The legislative and executive branches have shown that they have embarked on a long-term, measurable, orderly, and comprehensive process of reform 'to provide a high quality public education to every child.' They are proceeding purposefully to implement a plan to educate all public school children in the Commonwealth.. . . They have committed resources to carry out their plan, have done so in fiscally troubled times, and show every indication that they will continue to increase such resources as the Commonwealth's finances improve."
Indeed, in what must have made for painful reading for the teachers unions, Marshall even offered a note of praise for the MCAS graduation requirement.
"The requirement is not designed ... to winnow underperforming students from the graduation process," she wrote. "Prior to the act, failing high school students would have been permitted either to graduate without basic skills or fade away from the public education system altogether. They are now given extensive remedial opportunities."
In essence, then, the SJC said that state's 12-year commitment to education reform has been an intelligent, purposeful, good-faith effort, one that left no appropriate room for the SJC to intervene.
With this victory, the stage is now set for the second phase of education reform.
Yesterday Romney stressed that he wants more power for principals and superintendents to manage their schools and will support more funding for specific purposes such as after-school programs, a longer school day, early education, and merit pay for the best teachers.
Last week, a coalition associated with MassInsight Education proposed a package of initiatives that include raising the MCAS passing level, offering incentive pay to attract talented teachers in critical areas, and giving superintendents more authority to restaff underperforming schools.
Ideas abound. But one common denominator is that new dollars shouldn't be sent unencumbered. Instead, more funding should be targeted to specific goals and improvements.
With the Hancock suit now decided, it's time to abandon the discredited notion that more money alone will solve the state's remaining educational woes -- and take a fearless look at what should come next.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC supports state's education reform
By Kevin Rothstein
Massachusetts' highest court backed 13 years of education reform yesterday in a ruling that handed a sweeping victory to the state in a landmark lawsuit over school funding in poor communities.
"This is a great day for education reform, and it is a great day for the kids of the commonwealth," Gov. Mitt Romney said.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court opted not to oversee education. They soundly rejected an exhaustive report and recommendations made last year by Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford that experts predicted could have, if adopted, led to millions more in state education spending.
"The legislative and executive branches have shown that they have embarked on a long-term, measurable, orderly and comprehensive process of reform 'to provide a high quality public education to every child,'" Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote, citing the state's education law.
Romney, Education Commissioner David Driscoll, Board of Education Chairman James Peyser and Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose lawyers argued the case for the state, all maintained they wouldn't let the decision slow their momentum.
"We all said it. This task continues and we need to continue to improve," said Reilly, who is planning to run for governor. "This is a continuing struggle, a continuing effort."
Reilly's lawyers argued the case for the state, which had been sued by students in 19 poor communities. Lawyers for the students made their case by focusing on inadequacies in four of those communities - Brockton, Lowell, Springfield and Winchendon.
Marshall's decision noted the state was far from fulfilling the goals of the 1993 Education Reform Act. She also left the door open to future court intervention.
While the plaintiffs took some comfort from the finding that not all was well in Massachusetts classrooms, Norma Shapiro, president of the plaintiffs group Council for Fair School Finance, said slow progress was not enough.
"I'm sorry for the children that the court is so patient," she said. "The children have waited since 1993. That's 12 years. That's an entire generation."
Education Commissioner Driscoll said the lower court's findings did more to show problems in how districts spend the money than to prove inadequate state spending.
Kimberly Atkins and Jennifer Rosinski contributed to this report.
Return to top
Massachusetts Federation of Teachers
February 15, 2005
Statement by Kathleen A. Kelley
on the Hancock decision by the Supreme Judicial Court
Today’s decision is a defeat for thousands of children across Massachusetts, particularly children living in urban areas who must continue to struggle under the inequities of the current formula.
It’s shameful that the quality of the education a child receives is dependent upon the community in which their family happens to live, rather than the constitutional guarantee acknowledged by the Supreme Judicial Court in its decision today.
The Massachusetts Federation of Teachers (MFT) will continue to work cooperatively with the Legislature to correct the existing imbalances that hinder our urban public schools, perpetuate an achievement gap in urban communities, and violate children’s constitutional rights.
Kathleen Kelley is president of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers. The MFT represents educators in Boston, Springfield, Lawrence, Lynn, Lowell, Chelsea, Fall River, and many other school districts.
Return to top
Massachusetts Teachers Association
Feb. 15, 2005
Statement by MTA President Catherine A. Boudreau
on the SJC's Hancock ruling
Education reform in the commonwealth is not complete, and the court recognizes that fact. While a majority of the justices are willing to give the Legislature and governor more time, the court clearly acknowledges that "significant inadequacies" in educational resources and quality continue to exist.
Now our task as educators is to show our elected officials that too many children are being left behind under the current levels of funding. Every year that a child is stuck in an overcrowded classroom with out-dated textbooks is a shame, and should not be tolerated.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC rejects school-funding challenge
Declines to order hike in spending for poor districts
By Scott S. Greenberger and Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff
The state's highest court ruled yesterday against families seeking a major increase in state funding for school districts in poor communities, voting 5-2 that, after spending about $30 billion on public education over the past decade, the governor and Legislature "are embracing and acting on their constitutional duty to educate all public school students."
"A system mired in failure has given way to one that, although far from perfect, shows a steady trajectory of progress," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote in the majority opinion.
"No one, including the defendants, disputes that serious inadequacies in public education remain. But the Commonwealth is moving systemically to address those deficiencies and continues to make education reform a fiscal priority," she wrote.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Julie Hancock v. the Commissioner of Education amounts to an endorsement of the state's 1993 Education Reform Act, which led the state to boost school spending by more than $30 billion and create a test, the
MCAS, to measure academic performance.
But the decision dashes the hopes of plaintiffs, their lawyers, and some education and business leaders, who had hoped that the SJC would order changes that would lead to more money for education and a new statewide effort to improve schools.
Governor Mitt Romney and Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill had expected the high court to order them to spend millions or billions more, a prospect that was casting a pall over budget deliberations.
"Just spending more, by sending more money to the same people to do the same things, is not going to solve our problems," Romney said yesterday after the court issued its ruling. "Money alone doesn't do it."
The lawsuit had contended that poor school districts fare worse than affluent ones by various criteria -- including quality of libraries, the number of computers in classes, or opportunities for early childhood education -- and that funding is a major factor in the disparities.
Under the school aid formula, the amount of state funding to schools varies widely, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the state was violating its constitutional duty to provide an adequate education to all pupils.
In its defense, the state pointed out that it has sharply increased basic aid to schools over a decade and that policy and spending decisions should be made by the governor and Legislature, not the judiciary.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, whose office defended the state, cheered the court for acknowledging the state's progress and recognizing that it is the government's responsibility to set policy on schools.
"The court recognized that it is not the court's job to run our schools, and in fact it doesn't work when they do," Reilly said.
Plaintiffs and their lawyers expressed regret and surprise. Last spring, Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford issued a sweeping report to the
SJC, recommending that the state figure the cost of educating all children in key school systems in the lawsuit. She also recommended various steps to help struggling schools, including creating free pre-school for the neediest 3- and 4-year-olds.
Romney said yesterday he would ask for more spending on afterschool programs, lengthening the school day, and early childhood education. Democratic leaders have already said they want to spend more on early childhood programs.
But to advocates of more school funding, the suit's dismissal removes leverage to force the state to act.
Maurice Hancock -- father of lead plaintiff Julie Hancock, a Brockton High School junior -- said he and others would lobby the Legislature to aid them.
"How much longer do these children need to be patient?" asked Hancock yesterday, sitting next to his daughter at Brockton High. "We're hoping that the Legislature will still recognize that this is a real issue."
The Hancocks and other plaintiffs came from 19 school systems and cited what they viewed as inequities between their schools and those in wealthier towns, such as Brookline and Wellesley.
The plaintiffs say their schools' woes include high dropout rates, low test scores, crowded classes, and inadequate materials. The case primarily focused on Brockton, Lowell, Springfield, and Winchendon.
Yesterday, Maurice Hancock pulled his 16-year-old daughter out of math class to deliver the news that they lost the case. She has been the lead plaintiff since fifth grade.
Julie Hancock, who spoke at a press conference at Brockton High, said that her classes have more than 30 students each, that more than 4,000 students compete for 32 computers to write term papers after school, and that some textbooks are outdated. "Nothing has changed," she said.
The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael D. Weisman, pointed out that the SJC said the state still has an obligation to help schools in poor communities. "The only thing the Legislature ought to take away from today's decision is that the court is going to give them some time to get the job done," he said.
Marshall made it clear that it wasn't a decision for all time, he said. But Weisman acknowledged that yesterday's ruling was a far cry from the high court's decision in the 1993 McDuffy case, which ordered the state to close the school spending gap between rich and poor districts.
The threat of that lawsuit helped spur the Legislature to craft the Education Reform Act, which was passed three days after the McDuffy ruling.
Marshall wrote in the majority opinion that the four main school systems cited in the suit had seen "striking increases in their school spending." Citing Botsford's report, Marshall said that annual net school spending nearly doubled in Springfield, Lowell, Brockton, and Winchendon between 1993 and 2003.
Statewide, the total spent on kindergarten to Grade 12 rose from $3.6 billion in 1993, before the reform act, to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2002.
But Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, said the formula created in 1993 to distribute aid to school systems is still inadequate. The state needs to do more to help poor, urban school districts, which deal with more complicated problems than other systems.
"The cost of educating many urban children is greater," he said.
Besides the chief justice, Justices Francis X. Spina, Robert J. Cordy, Judith A.
Cowin, and Martha B. Sosman voted with the majority. Justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland dissented.
In the dissenting opinion, Greaney wrote, "Acute inadequacies exist in the educational programs of the four focus districts ..." and the plaintiffs should get relief, and the state should conduct a study to see what it would cost to help them.
Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll said schools can always use more money, but he cautioned that the need today is to get schools to spend the money they have more effectively. "There's been tremendous progress these past 10 years, and the courts have acknowledged that," Driscoll said. "Our job is hardly done. We have got a long way to go."
The Hancock decision makes it clear that the state could end up back in court if it fails to improve schools, and state leaders are aware of that, Reilly said. "The achievement gaps are unacceptable. We will all be watching. These kids, they deserve a shot."
Staff writers Kathy McCabe, Tracy Jan, and Frank Phillips contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
SJC sends ed issues back where they belong
By Rachelle Cohen
"We still have classes with 30 or more students." - Brockton High junior and plaintiff Julie Hancock, 16.
Memo to Julie Hancock: Try not to share that figure with the baby boomers on the Supreme Judicial Court who just decided against you. Likely those contemporaries of mine were the product of similar schools, which back in our day were bursting at the seams.
Anything under 45 students in a classroom was a rarity, and half-days for elementary school students were commonplace.
Now no one is suggesting a return to the bad old good old days. But the point is the state's highest court found that this isn't just about the numbers.
In fact, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall noted that "the focus districts in particular have seen striking increases in their school spending in the years since the [education reform] act became law."
Between 1993 and 2003, net school spending in Julie Hancock's hometown went from about $56 million to $143.5 million. Should the city have hired more teachers - to bring Julie's classes down to 25 students or pay its teachers more or buy better books or what? That the SJC decided not to second guess or micromanage that situation is a good thing.
Senate President Robert Travaglini agreed.
"The court recognized the progress we've made in our efforts to improve education," he said in an interview. "This has been a pause. Now it's time for Phase 2."
And with something like 107 school districts listed as "underperforming," the Senate president said, "that tells me we have to do some things differently."
Giving superintendents and principals more power to hire and fire is high on Travaglini's list.
The best thing about the SJC decision is that "it will spark a debate," and that's nothing Travaglini will shy away from. "The court threw it back to us and this is where is belongs."
Rachelle G. Cohen is editor of the editorial pages.
Return to top
The Hampshire Gazette
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Democrats do think of an elephant
By Mary Carey
Area Democrats all seem to be talking about the book "Don't Think of an Elephant!" by the linguist George
Lakoff. It urges progressives to pay attention to the words they use when discussing issues that are important to them such as the environment, education and health care.
State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, is hosting a round table discussion of the slim volume, which has an introduction by Howard Dean on Friday, March 4, 7 p.m. at Food for Thought Books, 106 North Pleasant St., Amherst.
State Rep. Ellen Story recommended it to University of Massachusetts professors at a Faculty Senate meeting last week.
"It's only about 100 pages long and costs $10," the Amherst democrat said. "I'm giving it to people."
The title comes from something Lakoff says he does in his Cognitive Science 101 course at the University of California, Berkeley. He tells the students not to think about elephants. They always do think about elephants, which demonstrates the power of suggestion.
Lakoff argues that progressives should take a page from conservatives' handbook and learn how to use language to frame issues in a way that speaks to their base and to swing voters who share some of their values.
Progressives should avoid the conservative's phrase "tax relief," for instance, because the word "relief" is usually used in connection with some kind of pain or affliction. When referring to taxes, Lakoff suggests progressives use words like "investment," because taxes pay for highway construction, or "dues," because taxes are the price a person pays to live in a society, much as a person pays dues to belong to a club.
Story, who is pressing to boost Massachusetts' personal income tax rate from 5.3 percent closer to the 5.95 percent it was several years ago, prefers the phrase "restoring" the tax rate to "increasing" it, she told the professors. "We've got to stop the idea the governor has that we should reduce the personal income tax to 5 percent."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday February 13, 2005
The Sensible Traveler
State backs off adjusting online occupancy tax
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney, spooked by even the suggestion he might raise taxes, has backed away from precedent-setting legislation that would have changed the way travelers pay hotel occupancy taxes when they get rooms from companies like
Hotels.com, Expedia, and Hotwire.
The rationale for the legislation was fairly simple: State and local occupancy taxes should be assessed on the rates consumers actually pay for their hotel rooms.
That’s the way it works now only when a traveler buys a room directly from a hotel. When the traveler purchases a room through a third-party website, taxes are assessed on the lower wholesale rate the website paid for the room.
The state Department of Revenue last year sought to tax all rooms the same way, no matter how they were purchased. The hotel industry blocked the measure, deriding it as an “Internet tourism tax.” The department was ready to try again ths year when Romney got cold feet and deleted it from a loophole-closing package.
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s communications director, said the governor dropped the initiative for two reason. First, it failed to pass last year and its chances this year were considered slim. Second,
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, objected to it.
“She thought it was a tax increase,” Fehrnstrom said. “Our view is that we want to avoid increases in taxes. What we do want to do it close loopholes.”
Anderson’s recollection wasn’t quite so clear. She didn’t remember the details of the Department of Revenue proposal. She said she though she had a question about the measure and e-mailed Fehrnstrom to learn more about it.
“I don’t remember being terribly emotionally involved in this,” Anderson said. “I do remember saying it sounded like a tax increase, or at least opening the door to a tax increase.”
That was apparently enough to derail a proposal that would have raised an
estimated $12 million to $18 million a year for the state by making consumers who book rooms here through travel websites pay more in state and local hotel occupancy and convention center taxes.
It’s a complicated issue, but one that governments across the country are reviewing closely. Many are considering legislation to recover taxes they believe they are rightfully owed. Others are going straight to court.
The City of Los Angeles, for example, filed suit last month against Expedia,
Priceline, Hotels.com, Travelocity, and Orbitz, alleging the websites were not remitting the proper amount of room taxes to the municipality. Los Angeles is seeking to recover taxes dating to 1999.
In Massachusetts, hotels pay occupancy taxes to the state based on the amount they charge for their rooms. When the sell direct of a traveler, the remit taxes on the rate paid by the consumer. When they sell to an Internet vendor, the pay on the lower wholesale rate they charge the third-party website.
In Boston, where hotel guests pay 12.4 percent of the room rate in state and local occupancy and convention enter taxes, a traveler purchasing a $100 rom directly from the hotel would pay a total of $12.40 in taxes. It that same room were first sold to a third-party website for $85, and the resold to a traveler for $100, the state would collect only $10.54 in taxes, the tax on $85, a difference of $1.86.
It’s unclear whether consumers booking rooms through third-party travel websites actually pay the lower tax, since many of the websites lump taxes in with service fees, making it impossible to know how much of each is being paid.
The proposed legislation worried many hotel operators here who feared they might get caught in the middle. The hotels feared the Department of Revenue might come after them for the additional tax money if the online resellers refused to voluntarily pass it along. Hotel operators worried they might have to chase the websites for the money or, worse, collect it from customers at check-in.
The administrative problems were a legitimate concern, but those concerns were never fully debated once opponents succeeded in labeling the initiative as an Internet tourism tax.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 16, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Who made Anderson boss?
Since when did Barbara Anderson, director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, become governor of the Commonwealth? In his The Sensible Traveler column (Travel, Feb. 13), Bruce Mohl reports that one of only two reasons the Romney administration deleted a change in hotel tax legislation was that Anderson objected to it.
The legislation would have taxed room rates at the rate consumers actually pay for their hotel rooms. According to Romney's communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, this isn't fair, since some rooms are taxed at the wholesale rate and would result in an increase in taxes. He said Anderson "thought it was a tax increase. Our view is that we want to avoid increases in taxes."
Despite continued cuts in services and nonmanagement state workers continuing to work without a contract or a raise, Mitt Romney doesn't seem to want to apply taxes fairly in a way that could assist in addressing the Commonwealth's fiscal problems because Anderson objects.
I thought Romney ran on a platform that opposed the power of special interests. Instead, he seems to be allowing the shortsighted leader of a special interest group to dictate the Commonwealth's tax and fiscal policy.
Wayne Thomas
Jamaica Plain
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|